bridge_verify

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what permissions or project state it requires, what it returns, or what 'conservative AABB candidates only' actually constrains. For a verification tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good. But the compressed jargon ('triangle calculations', 'conservative AABB candidates only') makes it dense rather than clear, so brevity comes at the cost of comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should be doing far more work than it does. An agent cannot determine required inputs, expected behavior, or return values from this text alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The phrase 'explicit targets' loosely suggests expected_areas and 'AABB candidates' hints at collision_types, but 'project' is entirely unexplained and no formats, structure, or accepted values are given. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names an action (compare) and objects (native room/floor areas, triangle calculations, explicit targets), so it is more than a tautology. However, it does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings such as bridge_geometry or bridge_validate_plan, and terms like 'triangle calculations' and 'AABB candidates' are unexplained jargon that leave the exact purpose ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_validate_plan or bridge_geometry, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the implicit 'verification' framing, which the agent must infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.